If HR steers your investigating manager towards a guilty finding, that can make your dismissal unfair.
“EATStands for Employment Appeal Tribunal. It hears appeals from employment tribunal decisions on points of law, not on the facts. It is not a way of simply asking for a second opinion on the outcome.: HR overstepped by influencing guilt findings, not just process; case sent back for further consideration.”
HR can advise your employer on process and on keeping sanctions consistent during a disciplinary investigation. It shouldn't be shaping the findings on your guilt or credibility.
- If the conclusions against you got worse without new evidence, ask what changed and who was involved.
- Ask your employer who contributed to the final decision, including any HR input. That's part of understanding whether your process was fair.
- Suspect HR steered the outcome rather than just advising on process? Get advice on whether that affects the fairness of your dismissal.
The situation
An employee was investigated over his expenses and his use of hire cars. The manager assigned to investigate had little experience of disciplinary proceedings. His first draft report was fairly favourable. It found the conduct wasn't intentionally dishonest, and called it misconduct rather than gross misconductBehaviour serious enough that your employer is entitled to dismiss you immediately without notice. Common examples include theft, violence, or serious dishonesty, but what counts depends on your emplo.... He recommended a final written warningA formal sanction one step below dismissal, usually issued for a serious matter or where a written warning is already live. A further disciplinary matter during the live period will typically result i....
Then he asked HR for advice. No new evidence turned up. His conclusions did, though. The final report found gross misconduct, and the employee was summarily dismissed.
What the tribunal found
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an investigating manager can take advice from HR. HR can guide them on the correct process and the law. It can also guide them on keeping sanctions consistent with other cases, though that guidance has to stop short of the manager's own judgment calls. Here, the advice went further: it touched on the employee's credibility and how culpable he was, the exact findings the manager was meant to reach on his own.
Nothing new had come to light to explain why his conclusions changed. That raised a real question over whether HR had improperly influenced the outcome. The EAT sent the case back to the tribunal to decide whether that influence was improper. If it was, the tribunal must go on to decide whether it changed the result.
Ramphal v Department for Transport. [2015] UKEAT/0352/14/DA. Employment Appeal Tribunal. 4 September 2015.